If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Aged 16-25? Share your experience of using the discussion boards and receive a £25 voucher! Take part via text-chat, video or phone. Click here to find out more and to take part.
Options
Comments
Without having read the replies or anything.
>sigh< Which bit of it do you mean? In one sense yes, in another no.
Quite correct.
So, lets be practical. On this basis, the world is flat.
Sorry mate. It's a tiny minority that program the rest of you with this bullshit for their own ends. Do you really think that your "leaders" think it's there? or do they just do enough to keep you under the illusion that it is because they know it makes your behaviour predictable?
Now are you saying that I am correct but doomed to be considered wrong because no one else will believe what's actually true, or are you saying I am incorrect?
Multiculturalism has failed, highlighted by the 7/7 suidicide bombings. A minority of British Pakistanis and other muslim groups feel alienated and disenfranchised. The bombings would not have taken place if the ethnic communties had been properly integrated.
Most Britians now are far more open to different cultures and experiences and happier and richer for it.
The US isnt some utopia when it comes to race relations at all. Just look at how the Mexicans are treated and the economic divide between the coloured and the whites.
And as for multiculturalism failing because immigrants live in 'sink hole' estates, it makes really no odds of their 'culture' those places are horrid for anyone who lives there.
Why the inverted commas- they were British. Born in Britain, therefore British.
Are you also seriously trying to imply that white people don't suicide bomb? It was white Chritians who invented the tactic- go and do some research on the Crusades- along with concentration camps and racial cleansing, it should be noted.
You mean in exactly the same way white Christians tolerate the Scientologists and Agnus Dei?
Often enough.
Ah, of course. Muslims (because that's what your goat is) just spend all their time suicide bombing places, yeah?
9% of the UK's population is Muslim, if memory serves me right (if you don't agree, go and research it yourself). That's about 5 million people. How many suicide bombers were there? 12? 15? 100? Even ten thousand suicide bombers is but 0.2% of the UK's Muslim population.
But lets not let facts like this get in the way of some good old-fashioned racial prejudice, eh? All those dirty Muslims can't wait to blow us up!
They only exist because someone with a big gun says they do, though.
I think people assume that the nation state is more inevitable than it really is. We managed perfectly without countries before 1648.
Am I reading this right? Are you suggesting White Christians who invented the suicide bomb during the crusades???
Could I have a source for the first suicide bomb being invented by Christians?
Racial cleansing probably came from way before Christ btw.
:yes:
:yes:
So, if we are in a country, and it exists, where was it before 1648? Or was everyone standing on a vacuum?
Make your mind up. Is it really there or not? Is it a belief or not?
No we didn't. The Treaty of Westphalia changed how states related to each other and reduced wars of religion. But states existed before then.
Look no further than Bible-toting, god-bothering George W. Bush and his ''crusades'' (his word) in Iraq and Afghanistan.
You could also mention our very own caring Christian Prime Minister, not too concerned either about waging wars of aggression and slaughtering tens of thousands of innocents.
Not the bomb. Certainly suicide attacks, though.
Here you go.
During the Crusades, the Knights Templar destroyed one of their own ships, killing 140 Christians in order to kill ten times as many Muslims.
That's not what I was asking. I'm well aware of Christian bombing. But as far as I'm aware the first recorded incidence of something referred to as suicide bombing was an Iranian boy-soldier strapping himself with explosive and throwing himself against an Iraqi tank. Though I suppose its possible to argue that he was following the example of Japanese soldiers who'd done the same thing during WW2.
whilst there may be isolated examples of others blowing themselves and others up for a political cause - it would be difficult to say they invented it, because a) it can often be difficult to say whether they meant to do it or not and b) you can really only claim to invent a trend if others follow you're example.
OK - interesting. I've never heard of this and would be interested in following it up ( can be a bit of a history nerd). Have you any dates or any more details.
Against that I'd struggle to put the scuttling of ships in the same category as suicide bombings. Often they are meant to deny the ship to the enemy or to prevent the enemy claiming they sunk it (Graf Spee and Bismarck are two examples which spring to mind). Also a Captain sinking a ship whilst often reckless of the lives of his crew, doesn't mean that he is planning to commit suicide doing it.
Oh it does. I was just using your reasoning for a moment...
Incidentally, if your methodology for establishing whether something exists or not consists on being able to feel it up with your hands or see it with your eyes, dare say you cannot really be sure whether anything at all really exists. Are you sure you are awake now? Are you sure this is not an hallucination?
Shall we just put such silly arguments to rest? If you believe counties are pointless man-made concepts, fair enough. But I'm no further prepared to discuss whether they "exist" or not any more than I'd be prepared to discuss whether Elvis is alive and living in sin with the Loch Ness monster on the third ring of Saturn with somebody who believed such thing.
What?
No, you weren't.
Course you can say that. It's not wht i am on about at all. unfortunately you are so brainwashed that you think when i say the country doesn't exist, you think I am saying that the ground itself isn't there. Which would of course, be ridiculous. What i am pointing out is that the distinction that's made between "england" and "wales" must by it's very nature be fictional. Not that hard to follow is it?
No, I don't believe that. it just happens to be the truth of the matter. I would swap silly for "maybe useful" perhaps. Why be ruled by fiction though? it never works well in the long run.
Nothing to do with what i am saying at all. From my point of view you are the one with the wacky unprovable belief. the fact that you have no proof but lots of fellow believers makes you akin to the early catholic curch or something.
But as Alladin points out, you don't take your reductionism far enough - you seem to be stopping at an arbitrary point. How can you be sure that anything exists?
You think you can touch things (or see, smell etc) but can you really? Couldn't it all be a dream? Couldn't your senses deceive you? Maybe you're a figment of a madman's imagination?
A country isn't a fiction, it's merely a different category of "thing" to a table.
Ok, what's your proof that the boundaries between "countries" exist and when and where did you get it?
No, I have no perception problem you seem to be basing your perceptions on the opinions of others though, which would be one in itself.
So the countries exist by agreements and laws that define their borders and legislations. I'm sorry if you cannot touch or feel a physical border. Everybody else manages just fine without it though.
I have no problme with the concept of nations. As a concept. Do people really think about them as the arbitary, man made delusions that they are though? No, they think they are facts and act accordingly.
All law is based on the idea that the contry exists first, and then the "laws" are applicable in that country. Agreement between who? When and where was this agreement made and what has it got to do with me? How can a "law" that only operates within a "country" be used to make a country up in the first place?
So theres no evidence for it.
I agree completely. Most people do just fine without it. Some people don't though, ask the millions of dead this century alone, all of them dead for a fiction.
the group without veichles that could fire explosives but had desperate disillusioned young people who liked their ideals is the one who invented the suicide bombers
whats so bad about a suicide bomber in comparison to someone that leaves a bomb to go off anyway????
actually its exactly the same it destroys the destryoer in process denying the other side a chance to extract information from it, whether it be a crew or 1 person
No it isn't. If I wander into a tube with the deliberate intent of blowing msyself and others up it is different from a ship's crew which finds itself in the situation to sink, scuttle or surremder.
It would only be the the same if the suicide bomber decided to blow himself up whilst being chased by police - which unless you have some evidence to contrary is not the case in mosty suicide bombs.
If most people perceive an idea as fact then it is treated as fact, but that doesn't make it real. The idea of a country is not real, but because everyone indulges in the same idea it is effectively real.
There is nothing concrete that makes a country real. Alsace-Lorraine proves that.
By vehicles firing explosives you mean tanks and by desperate, disillusioned young people you mean the German infantry on the Somme. So its the RTR's fault?
I tend to agree - I hoping the suicide bombers on't get their virgins. I hope the fuckers who placed the bomb at Enskillen burn painfully in hell.
But in security terms its harder to stop someone who's already decided to commit suicide than a normal terrorist who wants to plant a bomb and get out.
They exist because the people who benefit most from them force everyone else to indulge the idea.
They do exist. They're not real though.